This
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Objection (ECF
No. 5) to the Magistrate Judge's March 9, 2018 Report and
Recommendation (ECF. No. 4), recommending that the Court
dismiss this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Upon
independent review of this Court, and for the reasons set
forth below, Plaintiff's Objections are hereby
OVERRULED, and the Court
ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation. This case is dismissed.

I.
BACKGROUND

Plaintiff
filed a Complaint (ECF No. 1) with this Court on February 22,
2018, asserting a series of claims and naming twelve
defendants. (ECF No. 1 at 1). Plaintiff begins the portion of
the Complaint entitled “substantive allegations”
by describing the “foreclosure crisis since
mid-2007”. Plaintiff then cites a series of
transactions that purportedly involve the Defendants.
(Id. at 3-4). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
violated laws such as the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act
and the Ohio Consumer Sales Practice Act.

Plaintiff
recites the requirements of default judgment and asks this
Court to enter “default judgment against Federal
National Mortgage Association, et al., for
violations of the CFPA and the (FDCPA).” (ECF No. 1 at
10). Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief as well as $30, 862,
268.88 for himself and his family. (ECF No. 1 at 19).

The
Magistrate Judge found this Complaint to be frivolous as it
lacks an “arguable basis in law or in fact.” (ECF
No. 4 at 5) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989)) (internal quotations omitted). Furthermore,
the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff fails to state a
claim against any Defendant even under a liberal reading of
the Complaint. (Id.). Because Plaintiff's
Complaint was both frivolous and failed to state a claim, the
Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court dismiss this
case.

II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW

Plaintiff
does not offer specific objections to the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation throughout the
Objection. Instead, as in the Complaint, Plaintiff lists a
series of claims, largely comprising the recitation of legal
standards. (EFC No. 5). The Objection does not address any of
the Magistrate Judge's reasons for recommending that the
case be dismissed pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P 8(a)(2) and/or 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii). Instead, because
no specific arguments within the Report and Recommendation
are addressed by Plaintiff, it appears that Plaintiff objects
to the Report and Recommendation generally.

As this
Court has held, “[a] general objection to the entirety
of [a] magistrate's report has the same effects as would
failure to object.” Anderson v. County of
Hamilton, 780 F.Supp.2d 635, 642 (S.D. Ohio 2011)
(quoting Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human
Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991)) (internal
quotations omitted). Furthermore, there is no requirement for
a district court to review aspects of a magistrate's
report where a party has failed to make a specific objection.
Id. (quoting Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
149-50 (1985)). Plaintiff's complaint, however, is held
to, “less stringent standards than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers” because Plaintiff is proceeding
pro se. Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380,
383 (6th Cir. 2011). Generally, when proceeding pro
se, plaintiffs are held to more liberal standards in the
evaluation of their complaints. The Court will therefore
review the objection and make a de novo determination as
directed under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof,
that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at
any ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.